The Maharashtra Police’s move to arrest five well-known activists was punctured on Wednesday with the Supreme Court observing that “dissent is the safety valve of democracy” and directing that those in its custody be kept under house arrest.
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition filed by academics Romila Thapar, Prabhat Patnaik, Devaki Jain and Satish Deshpande, among others. Tushar Mehta told the court that since none of the petitioners were the ones arrested, a lower court should decide the matter.
“Dissent is the safety valve of democracy and if you don’t allow these safety valves, it will burst,” a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said.
Dealing a blow to the Maharashtra Police, the apex court questioned it for arresting the activists nine months after the violence between Dalits and upper caste Peshwas in Koregaon-Bhima village near Pune following the Elgar Parishad, or conclave, on 31 December, 2017.
Provocative speeches were made at the Elgar Parishad, which triggered the violence, according to an FIR registered in a Pune police station.
The apex court also issued notice to the Maharashtra government and the state police on the plea by five leading intellectuals, including historian Romila Thapar and economists Prabhat Patnaik and Devaki Jain, against the arrests in connection with the case.
“The Supreme Court order has passed an order that covers all who were arrested,” said lawyer Vrinda Grover after the ruling. She added that they would be taken back to their homes.
While trade unionist and lawyer Bharadwaj is confined to her home in Faridabad and civil liberties activist Navlakha to his Delhi residence, Telugu poet Rao and activists Gonsalves and Ferreira were taken to Pune late on Tuesday night.
They were arrested for their suspected links to Maoists following near simultaneous searches at Rao’s home in Hyderabad, Gonzalves’ and Ferreira’s residences in Mumbai as well as in Faridabad and Delhi, officials said.
They were arrested under IPC Section 153(A), which relates to promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place or birth, residence, language and committing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
Some other sections of the IPC were also pressed, along with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for their “alleged Naxal activities”, an official said, without elaborating.
As activists and others breathed a little easier following the apex court ruling, the Delhi High Court, which was hearing Navlakha’s plea, observed that even if all other arrests were found to be valid, it would not lend validity to his arrest.
The National Human Rights Commission also stepped into the controversy, saying “it appears” standard operating procedure was not properly followed and this may amount to a violation of the human rights of those arrested. It issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the state’s police chief and asked for a ‘factual report’ within four weeks. Read here
